Bullwinkle v. California, 449 U.S. 988 (1980). · Go Syfert
Search
Bullwinkle v. California, 449 U.S. 988 (1980). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
15 citation events across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Smith v. Cutter Biological, Inc. (haw, 1991-11-29)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. Cutter Biological, Inc.
Haw. · 1991 · confidence medium
DES Case Law The primary authority cited by the majority in support of its position is the DES case of Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories, 26 Cal.3d 588 , 163 Cal. Rptr. 132 , 607 P.2d 924 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 912 , 101 S.Ct. 285 , 66 L.Ed.2d 285, 286 (1980), which was the first to judicially promulgate the market share liability theory.
cited Cited "see" Hardy v. Georgia
SCOTUS · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See 449 U.S. 988 , 101 S.Ct. 523 , 66 L.Ed.2d 285 (1980).
cited Cited "see" Coleman v. State
Mont. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See, Drake v. Zant, 449 U.S. 999 , 101 S.Ct. 541 , 66 L.Ed.2d 297 , 49 U.S.L.W. 3371 (1980).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now v. Municipality of Golden, Colorado
unknown court · 1984 · signal: see also · confidence low
Whether the city council or the police exercise this power, we believe that it runs afoul of the basic principle that “forbids the government from regulating speech in ways that favor some viewpoints or ideas at the expense of others.” Taxpayers for Vincent, supra, — U.S. at---, 104 S.Ct. at 2128; see also Troyer v. Town of Babylon, 483 F.Supp. 1135, 1139 (E.D.N.Y.1980) (government has no power to restrict communication because of its content, subject matter or familiarity), aff'd mem., 628 F.2d 1346 (2d Cir.), summarily aff'd, 449 U.S. 988 , 101 S.Ct. 522 , 66 L.Ed.2d 285 (1980).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Association Of Community Organizations For Reform Now v. Municipality Of Golden
unknown court · 1984 · signal: see also · confidence low
Whether the city council or the police exercise this power, we believe that it runs afoul of the basic principle that "forbids the government from regulating speech in ways that favor some viewpoints or ideas at the expense of others." Taxpayers for Vincent, supra, --- U.S. at ---- - ----, 104 S.Ct. at 2128; see also Troyer v. Town of Babylon, 483 F.Supp. 1135, 1139 (E.D.N.Y.1980) (government has no power to restrict communication because of its content, subject matter or familiarity), aff'd mem., 628 F.2d 1346 (2d Cir.), summarily aff'd, 449 U.S. 988 , 101 S.Ct. 522 , 66 L.Ed.2d 285 (1980). 2…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Dunham v. District of Columbia
D.C. · 1982 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also People v. Bullwinkle, 105 Cal.App.3d 82, 90 , 164 Cal.Rptr. 163, 168 , appeal dismissed, 449 U.S. 988 , 101 S.Ct. 522 , 66 L.Ed.2d 285 (1980) (officer’s subjective belief irrelevant to question of validity of search). 9 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Bullwinkle
v.
California and Bullwinkle v. California
No. 80-5263; No. 80-5456.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 17, 1980.
449 U.S. 988
Cited by 12 opinions  |  Published

Appeals from Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist., dismissed for want of substantial federal question. Reported below: 105 Cal. App. 3d 82, 164 Cal. Rptr. 163.